Scathing 'jobs for mates' review finds government appointments too often look like 'nepotism'

Recent governments have too often rewarded friends for past loyalty with plum jobs or picked candidates to promote political priorities, a long-awaited review into political appointments has found.

These government appointments had all too often "looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in the modern Australian society", the scathing report said, warning that the current system had eroded trust with the public.

The review by Lynelle Briggs — dubbed an investigation into "jobs for mates" — was tasked with probing government appointments to public boards after Labor's 2022 election win and the report was scheduled to be made public at the end of 2023.

But until its belated release on Tuesday, Labor said the report remained under cabinet consideration, despite fervent calls from the Coalition and the crossbench for it to be made public.

Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher defended the delay as she unveiled an overhaul of the appointments framework, which included a list of strengthened principles focused on merit and diversity but did not adopt key recommendations from the review, like banning ministerial appointments in the six months before an election.

She told Senate estimates that the release of the report was held up while work on the new framework was completed.

"We took the time to get this right," she said in a statement earlier in the day.

"We want to make the best appointments in the national interest with an emphasis on merit, diversity, accountability and this new framework delivers this."

System has let down the public, review finds

Ms Briggs, a former public service commissioner, found the current arrangements were not fit for purpose and "do not always provide the best person for the job".

"They have let down the Australian people, undermined the integrity and effectiveness of the public sector and exposed ministers to unnecessary risk," the report reads.

The current system also did not, she wrote, provide ministers with the support they needed to find the best candidates for the job and make appointments.

While Ms Briggs noted that the vast majority of ministerial board positions were not political in nature, in some portfolios as many as half of the appointments in recent years had been made directly by ministers without a formal process.

"This level of direct appointments is without parallel in other similar Westminster countries and has brought about a climate where Australians now think that all appointments are political appointments," the report reads.

Ms Briggs said government board positions were rarely advertised, which meant the pool of candidates was "limited and not diverse".

One "particularly egregious matter", according to Ms Briggs, was the practice of political staffers, former politicians, supporters and friends being appointed to government positions in the lead-up to elections "with seemingly little regard for the consequences".

"Such bequests in the dying days of a government are shameless; are widely frowned upon by the public; and bring governments into disrepute," the report reads.

Report includes recommendations

Ms Briggs made a number of recommendations, including that board appointments should be for a standard term of four years and statutory office holders for five years unless otherwise outlined in legislation.

Additionally, no person should serve on more than two paid government boards at any one time, the report recommends, unless the prime minister signs off on it on the basis they are "specialist or significant and eminently talented".

It also found politicians and staffers should not be appointed to boards within six months of leaving government positions or 18 months if they were in ministerial jobs.

It also recommended that no ministerial board appointments should be made in the six months before the last possible election date and that the Australian Public Service Commission should also take responsibility for supporting appointment processes, in conjunction with the ministers.

The changes should be legislated, Ms Briggs said.

Instead, the government announced a new list of principles to inform decision-making, including that ministers remain responsible for "and should be transparent about" appointments within their portfolios, appointments should always be made on the "basis of merit" and in the "interests of good government" and public positions should "reflect the breadth of the Australian community".

The framework includes some of the review's recommendations, like limiting the number of board positions a person holds to two, where possible.

But it does not reference the call to add six-month wait times for former politicians and staffer appointments, nor the pre-election ban on ministerial appointments.

In response to questions in Senate estimates, Senator Gallagher said the government did not agree with those recommendations because it was not fair to people who had the right skills for an appointment and because the latter issue was covered sufficiently by caretaker provisions.

"There are people who leave work in this parliament who do have the right skills and would be an asset on government boards and committees," she said.

"The ministerial code covers things like post-employment arrangements, including in areas where ministers have had direct responsibility, and that remains.

"But to say that somebody can't at five months and four weeks, three weeks, they can't be appointed, but at six months and one week they can, we don't agree with."

The framework will also not be legislated, which Senator Gallagher has said is unnecessary because it will need to be followed even if it is not law.

The changes will come into effect from February 2 next year and will apply to all appointments to federal government positions.

"Australians expect the highest standards of integrity and transparency in public sector appointments," Senator Gallagher said.

"This framework is about making sure appointments are made on merit, with transparency and accountability at every step."